Com. v. Connelly

Decision Date24 May 1895
Citation163 Mass. 539,40 N.E. 862
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. CONNELLY (two cases).
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

Andrew J. Jennings, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

John W Cummings, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP J.

These are two complaints, each in two counts, under St.1893, c 417, § 321,--the first for falsely making, and the second for filing, knowing the same to be falsely made, a nomination paper. The material parts of section 321 are as follows "Whoever falsely makes *** any certificate of nomination or nomination paper, or any part thereof, or files any certificate of nomination or nomination paper knowing the same or any part thereof to be falsely made, *** shall be punished," etc. Motions were made to quash the complaints because no fraudulent intent was alleged, either in the making or the filing of the paper, and because the manner or means in which the paper was falsely made was not alleged. We are of opinion that the motions to quash the complaints were rightly overruled. The offenses charged of making and of filing respectively are purely statutory offenses, and it was enough to charge them in the language of the statute. In Tully v. Com., 4 Metc. (Mass.) 357, it was said by Chief Justice Shaw: "When the statute punishes an offense by its legal designation without enumerating the acts which constitute it, then it is necessary to use the terms which technically charge the offense named at common law. *** But we think this is not necessary when the statute describes the whole offense, and the indictment charges the crime in the words of the statute." See, also, Com. v. Harris, 13 Allen, 534, 539; Com. v. Barrett, 108 Mass. 302. We have no occasion to consider whether the first count of the first complaint sufficiently sets forth in what manner or by what means the defendant falsely made said nomination papers, for the manner and means are fully set forth in the second count. The counts are for the same offense, and the motion to quash is to the whole complaint and not to any particular count thereof.

The gist of the offense in the second complaint is that the defendant filed the nomination paper knowing the same to be falsely made. As to the first ground assigned in the motion to quash, the authorities above cited show that it was sufficient to set out the offense in the words of the statute. The second complaint does not set out, in either count, in detail, in what respect the nomination paper was falsely made. But the offense charged is purely a statutory offense, and it was enough to charge it in the words of the statute. Tully v. Com., ubi supra; Com. v. Ferry, 146 Mass. 203, 208, 15 N.E. 484.

The remaining question is whether the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury in each case to return a verdict of not guilty. Section 78, St.1893, c. 417, provides: "Every voter signing a nomination paper shall sign the same in person, and shall add to his signature his place of residence, with the street and number thereof, if any." The question is what is meant by the words, "shall sign the same in person." The natural meaning of the statute is that a voter shall, with his own hand, write his name and address. If anything less than this is permitted, the signing must be done at the request of the voter, and in his presence. Previous authority or subsequent ratification is not enough. To hold otherwise would be to give no effect to the words "in person." There is nothing in the agreed facts to show that any one of the six names written by the defendant was written in the presence of the voter to whom it belonged. No fraudulent intent is necessary to constitute the offense. It is immaterial that the defendant did not intend to break the law. It is enough that he did the things made offenses by the statute. Com. v. Farren, 9 Allen 489; Com. v. Goodman, 97 Mass. 117; Com. v. Raymond, Id. 567; Com. v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6; Com. v. Wentworth, 118 Mass. 441; Com. v. Shea, 150 Mass. 315, 23 N.E. 47; Com. v. Gray, 150 Mass. 327, 23 N.E. 47; Com. v. Warren, 160 Mass. 533, 36 N.E. 308. When, therefore, the defendant signed the names of the six voters to the nomination paper, he falsely made such paper, and when he filed such paper, he filed a falsely made nomination paper,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1905
    ...Moreover, his views could not affect the validity of the statute, nor entitle him to be excepted from its provisions. Com. v. Connolly, 163 Mass. 539, 40 N. E. 862; Com. v. Has, 122 Mass. 40; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 25 L. ed. 244; Reg. v. Downes, 13 Cox, C. C. 111. The othe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT